Top-Selling Handgun Safe Can Be Remotely Opened in Seconds without PIN

Yeah not sure why there's wireless connectivity with a safe. This to just alert you if someone opens the safe? That said, all you have to do is connect to the safe, and make sure you're connected when they change the code, then you can essentially intercept that code they changed. I'm guessing inside a closet or whatever won't give it the largest range in the world.
 
A lot of safes sold for homes are not very secure. There are some videos showing a person using a sock and a strong magnet to get into the majority of safes sold at places like Home Depot, Lowes, etc. The guy has been sued by the vendors and issued take down orders. Last I heard, he was fighting them.
 
Still harder than typing 1234 or 4321 or 1111 or 0000 that will open most PIN-secured things. And you don't even need to bring a laptop on your gun burglary or raid on dad's closet.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Yeah not sure why there's wireless connectivity with a safe. This to just alert you if someone opens the safe? That said, all you have to do is connect to the safe, and make sure you're connected when they change the code, then you can essentially intercept that code they changed. I'm guessing inside a closet or whatever won't give it the largest range in the world.
Click to expand...
I'd have no problem with wireless connectivity in a safe for monitoring purposes (a simple opened/closed contact), but it should be completely separate from the locking mechanism. It's Safe 101 that it should only be able to be opened in person with the correct code(s) or maybe a key (backup for an electronic lock).
 
I'd worry more about an angle grinder or hammer on that thing than someone going all egghead and scouring the internet for a Bluetooth exploit to run from a command window...
 
I dont really understand why this is news? this is the kind of safe that is really just about keeping your kids from playing with it. you can just take the whole thing if you wanted to steal it and throw it off a parking garage later.
 
Buy locks...not Glocks.

Always though it kind of a fail situation if you have to resort to gunfire in your home to protect your family.
 
daglesj said:
Buy locks...not Glocks.

Always though it kind of a fail situation if you have to resort to gunfire in your home to protect your family.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make sense to me. There is no such thing as a house you can't get into, kick down a door, break a window, whatever. There is no lock that keeps a dishonest person out. Gunfire is the only equalizer in that situation.
 
Master_shake_ said:
I don't think diplomacy is the best way to stop a stranger from stealing your shit and killing you.
Click to expand...

No but locking your door first would help mitigate that.

You've failed Home Security 101 if people just walk in.

Spend $2000 on a AR but live with a rotten door and a 2 lever lock worth $20.

But doors are not as much fun are they?
 
daglesj said:
No but locking your door first would help mitigate that.

You've failed Home Security 101 if people just walk in.

Spend $2000 on a AR but live with a rotten door and a 2 lever lock worth $20.

But doors are not as much fun are they?
Click to expand...
Locks if you haven't noticed don't stop people from kicking in windows or locked doors.
 
gunbust3r said:
I'd worry more about an angle grinder or hammer on that thing than someone going all egghead and scouring the internet for a Bluetooth exploit to run from a command window...
Click to expand...
The kids living in the house? Duh.
 
Master_shake_ said:
I don't think diplomacy is the best way to stop a stranger from stealing your shit and killing you.
Click to expand...
Running away is still less likely to get you killed than going for a gun. Even if the thief doesn't even have a weapon, you go for it, he sees it panics there is a commotion, and anyone can end up being shot.

Being close to guns doesn't protect you, it only makes it more likely that you (or the people around you) will be killed by a gun, your gun.
 
John Ransom said:
If they are dedicated enough to to bother doing this to get it, your screwed using a safe this size anyway. Need a large floor unit
Click to expand...
Why? They won't go for it with an axle grinder how will they explain that to daddy? But they simply unlock it, play with it and nobody is the wiser until it's too late.
 
Master_shake_ said:
Locks if you haven't noticed don't stop people from kicking in windows or locked doors.
Click to expand...

You can still buy a decent door and frame. Pretty much standard fit.

Again buying a decent reinforced front and back door (they are readily available in hardware stores) are a better investment than a gun. 99.9% of home invasions probably happen due to the door being unlocked or open. Kicking in the door is probably a more Hollywood thing. Plus what the hell do you have that they will do a viking raid on your home?

Just fit a decent door and lock and the guy who is more likely after your TV or Bluray player for drugs than doing a full Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer on your family will probably move on to the next.

Panicked/adrenaline rush gun fire in a home with plasterboard walls etc. is not a good mix with family around.
 
daglesj said:
You can still buy a decent door and frame. Pretty much standard fit.

Again buying a decent reinforced front and back door (they are readily available in hardware stores) are a better investment than a gun. 99.9% of home invasions probably happen due to the door being unlocked or open. Kicking in the door is probably a more Hollywood thing. Plus what the hell do you have that they will do a viking raid on your home?

Just fit a decent door and lock and the guy who is more likely after your TV or Bluray player for drugs than doing a full Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer on your family will probably move on to the next.

Panicked/adrenaline rush gun fire in a home with plasterboard walls etc. is not a good mix with family around.
Click to expand...
Really 99.9% of home invasions are due to unlocked doors? I know you just made that up because if you ever had to deal with a break in you know what it wouldn't be considered a "break in" if there are no visual signs of forced entry. Nice try on making up bogus statistics.
 
SomeoneElse said:
Really 99.9% of home invasions are due to unlocked doors? I know you just made that up because if you ever had to deal with a break in you know what it wouldn't be considered a "break in" if there are no visual signs of forced entry. Nice try on making up bogus statistics.
Click to expand...

72% of all statistics are made up, even this one, and that one
 
SomeoneElse said:
Really 99.9% of home invasions are due to unlocked doors? I know you just made that up because if you ever had to deal with a break in you know what it wouldn't be considered a "break in" if there are no visual signs of forced entry. Nice try on making up bogus statistics.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about 'breaks in when occupants are still inside'. Burglaries are very different but basic home security still wins in most cases.

Leave your doors and windows open/unlocked and you are asking for trouble. If people get in then you've failed your family, gun or no gun.

But if you'd rather resort to gunfire in your home and the following trauma than just making some creep think twice before even turning the door handle then it's your call. Knock yourself out.
 
M76 said:
Running away is still less likely to get you killed than going for a gun. Even if the thief doesn't even have a weapon, you go for it, he sees it panics there is a commotion, and anyone can end up being shot.

Being close to guns doesn't protect you, it only makes it more likely that you (or the people around you) will be killed by a gun, your gun.
Click to expand...

This is a complete fallacy that isn't based on any kind of fact or study. Even the "gun deaths" statistic which is often used to backup your assertion includes suicides. I guess if someone breaks into my house on the day I chose to commit suicide, yes, my gun could end up killing me. The only reason people believe this nonsense that guns aren't good for safety is because there's essentially a complete media blackout of any story where a person uses a gun to protect themselves or their family.
 
Another day, another Wireless gizmo being compromised. Situation normal.

daglesj said:
Buy locks...not Glocks.

Always though it kind of a fail situation if you have to resort to gunfire in your home to protect your family.
Click to expand...

It really is but it does happen. A fair number of crooks target homes with folks in them so they can either threaten the victims to reveal the loot, have their way with them, both, and/or kidnap one for later abuse. Most locked doors are not secure against a foot with a 200lb person behind it. Watch few Cops shows and you will quickly see just how flimsy most front doors are when pitted against someone trying to bust in.

A gun should be considered part of a layered defense, not the entire solution. Another part is unarmed combat training of your choice.

I would rather have the gun and not need it then not have it and wish I did. For those with small children running about, the choice about the gun gets more complicated.

A lot of home defense with gun success stories involve zero shots fired as the intruder runs when he/she sees the gun carrying home owner.
 
Things I don't and never will have on my gun safe: wireless, internet connected and electronic locks. Sorry but, no, just no.
 
M76 said:
Running away is still less likely to get you killed than going for a gun. Even if the thief doesn't even have a weapon, you go for it, he sees it panics there is a commotion, and anyone can end up being shot.

Being close to guns doesn't protect you, it only makes it more likely that you (or the people around you) will be killed by a gun, your gun.
Click to expand...

So basically if you want to reduce cops being killed they should put bananas in their holsters. Got it...
 
SomeoneElse said:
Really 99.9% of home invasions are due to unlocked doors? I know you just made that up because if you ever had to deal with a break in you know what it wouldn't be considered a "break in" if there are no visual signs of forced entry. Nice try on making up bogus statistics.
Click to expand...
I was broken into once while I was away overnight. The back door was a very strong hardwood door with a deadbolt that required a key on both sides. Crooks smashed a window, crawled inside, and used a prybar to destroy the door and door frame to get out with the loot.

Funny thing - I had forgotten to lock the front door when I left, but the crooks didn't try that.

Back on topic - Whoever thought putting bluetooth connectivity into a physical security device and linking it to the locking mechanism is a moron.
 
daglesj said:
I'm talking about 'breaks in when occupants are still inside'. Burglaries are very different but basic home security still wins in most cases.

Leave your doors and windows open/unlocked and you are asking for trouble. If people get in then you've failed your family, gun or no gun.

But if you'd rather resort to gunfire in your home and the following trauma than just making some creep think twice before even turning the door handle then it's your call. Knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

Break ins with occupants inside is now the preferred method. The current strategy now is that someone will come to the front door with a "survey or to sell you something". Then the accomplice comes in through the back door if it's unlocked. If it's locked they bash in a window. The person at the front either doesn't know (unlocked) or becomes distracted (smash in) which lets the person at the front door power their way in. The person is then raped and tortured until they reveal material financial information such as logins for investing accounts, bank accounts, codes to the safe, etc... At that point, the person may continue to be raped and tortured if they are lucky and murdered if they are unlucky.

Criminals are not stupid, they know they can get much more money from having someone in the house than nobody in the house.
 
Seventyfive said:
Break ins with occupants inside is now the preferred method. The current strategy now is that someone will come to the front door with a "survey or to sell you something". Then the accomplice comes in through the back door if it's unlocked. If it's locked they bash in a window. The person at the front either doesn't know (unlocked) or becomes distracted (smash in) which lets the person at the front door power their way in. The person is then raped and tortured until they reveal material financial information such as logins for investing accounts, bank accounts, codes to the safe, etc... At that point, the person may continue to be raped and tortured if they are lucky and murdered if they are unlucky.

Criminals are not stupid, they know they can get much more money from having someone in the house than nobody in the house.
Click to expand...

Source?
 
Lizard Testes said:
Source?
Click to expand...

If you google for "distraction burglary" or "distraction home invasion" you will get a ton of results. Where you read about it the most is in the actual news where you read about a home invasion and the victim explaining what happened. I learned about it from my sister who got a local police bulletin about it 5 years ago and ever since then I have been paying a lot of attention to it.

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/new...s-popping-up-all-over-the-country-010715.html

https://www.thespruce.com/spread-the-word-about-distraction-burglary-1695926
 
Seventyfive said:
This is a complete fallacy that isn't based on any kind of fact or study. Even the "gun deaths" statistic which is often used to backup your assertion includes suicides. I guess if someone breaks into my house on the day I chose to commit suicide, yes, my gun could end up killing me. The only reason people believe this nonsense that guns aren't good for safety is because there's essentially a complete media blackout of any story where a person uses a gun to protect themselves or their family.
Click to expand...
Yeah sorry, if I'm not going to take your word for it. You should back up that claim by something, you can't just say that statistics are wrong and what I say is how it is. Which case are you more likely to die by a gun? If there are no guns involved and you focus on escaping instead of confronting the assailant, or if you decide to play rambo and try to get out your gun from a safe, instead of trying to get away from harm's way. The answer is pretty obvious to me. Avoiding a fight is always better for your health, than going into it head first. Yes, if fighting is unavoidable it can go either way, but avoiding the confrontation is best.

Is there a blackout? I don't think so, I heard quite a few stories like that. It is happening exactly at the rate one would predict compared to cases where owning a gun goes wrong. That's exactly what I'm talking about, that sometimes sure the gun will win the day, but most of the time it just escalates the situation instead of defusing it. You can't definitively claim that because there were x cases where the gun helped, therefore gun = always good.

Tazman2 said:
So basically if you want to reduce cops being killed they should put bananas in their holsters. Got it...
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that the police being armed is the same as every home having a gun?
You act as if you never heard about any friendly fire and stolen gun incidents involving police. Well perhaps you were completely oblivious to them until now, but unfortunately they happen more often than you'd think. And it's kind of part of the job for the police(being armed), although the scotland yard would care to disagree. Anyway they're trained in using the gun and handling situations, unlike joe schmoe at home who goes for the gun safe while having a panic attack. If you have time to get to the gun, you probably also have time to get to safety. I don't even care if you go for the gun, just don't get into the face of the assailant all pumped up because you got a gun, instead think and gtfo.
 
This is a nice party trick on the safe, but who cares. The safe isn't meant to stop someone who is determined to get in, only to prevent little hands from messing around with daddy's toys. BFD.
 
M76 said:
Yeah sorry, if I'm not going to take your word for it. You should back up that claim by something, you can't just say that statistics are wrong and what I say is how it is. .
Click to expand...

1. Fact: Guns are used more often to save life. Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make the claim that guns are more likely to kill the owner are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns. (1) That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms. Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker. (2)

2. Fact: A study claiming "guns more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one's own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years. (3) Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:

* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman's study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim's home." (4) In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household."

* In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim's "high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group."(5)


1. Dr. Edgar A. Suter, "Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review," The Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, vol. 83 (March 1994):136.

2. Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.

3. Don B. Kates, "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence, or Pandemic of Propaganda?" in Gary Kleck & Kates, Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control (2001), p. 79.

4. Ibid., p. 75.

5. Ibid., p. 76.
 
M76 said:
Yeah sorry, if I'm not going to take your word for it. You should back up that claim by something, you can't just say that statistics are wrong and what I say is how it is. Which case are you more likely to die by a gun? If there are no guns involved and you focus on escaping instead of confronting the assailant, or if you decide to play rambo and try to get out your gun from a safe, instead of trying to get away from harm's way. The answer is pretty obvious to me. Avoiding a fight is always better for your health, than going into it head first. Yes, if fighting is unavoidable it can go either way, but avoiding the confrontation is best.

Is there a blackout? I don't think so, I heard quite a few stories like that. It is happening exactly at the rate one would predict compared to cases where owning a gun goes wrong. That's exactly what I'm talking about, that sometimes sure the gun will win the day, but most of the time it just escalates the situation instead of defusing it. You can't definitively claim that because there were x cases where the gun helped, therefore gun = always good.


Do you honestly think that the police being armed is the same as every home having a gun?
You act as if you never heard about any friendly fire and stolen gun incidents involving police. Well perhaps you were completely oblivious to them until now, but unfortunately they happen more often than you'd think. And it's kind of part of the job for the police(being armed), although the scotland yard would care to disagree. Anyway they're trained in using the gun and handling situations, unlike joe schmoe at home who goes for the gun safe while having a panic attack. If you have time to get to the gun, you probably also have time to get to safety. I don't even care if you go for the gun, just don't get into the face of the assailant all pumped up because you got a gun, instead think and gtfo.
Click to expand...

First part your assuming the bad guy would have no gun. That's almost as accurate as knowing when crime will happen. 2nd part assuming cops have more gun training then citizens is a HORRIBLE assumption. NYPD will unload 180 rounds into a car and barely hit the person. And when they unload in public they hit more bystanders then the perk. And from what I recall they are the "greatest police force in the world". TONS of cops admit they never unholster their weapon for months at a time so please cut the "police are more trained" bs. Some maybe MOST are but not all of them not by a long shot. And yes the NYPD thing happens quiet a bit google it. And I bet you never heard of the top 10 shootings stopped by a good guy with a gun such as off duty security, etc. It happens ALOT your just dumbed down by the TV on the real stats because your supposed to believe police are trained and WILL protect you. Where were they during SandyHook!? Waiting at the top of the hill for backup. If your gonna do that then change the "Protect and serve" on your car to be accurate and add "myself" at the end. What about Hartford Distributors? I believe it took them 18+ minutes till they went in. Vegas!? The most heavily surveillanced city/hotel and it took them what 45 or so minutes to find the shooter and get into the hotel room!? At the end of the day police rather take the easy/safer route. Speeding and DUI stops which apparently don't work because people keep doing both! ;)

EDIT: Lets not forget negligent discharges. What is the ratio of cops to people!? Quiet a bit yes? But yet in my state alone the police have had more "accidental" discharges then citizens and one even in a school! You always hear how glocks aren't safe because of no safety and yes that is because it happens to police ALL the time because they forget rule #1 and put their finger on the trigger with no target in sight and/or assume the gun is unloaded!
 
Last edited:
I like it! Uneducated people balk at police trade-in guns. In reality they are usually (close to) brand new.
 
Liver said:
I like it! Uneducated people balk at police trade-in guns. In reality they are usually (close to) brand new.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! Some will have a ton of holster wear but that's about it internals are like a almost new gun! ;)
 
M76 said:
Yeah sorry, if I'm not going to take your word for it. You should back up that claim by something, you can't just say that statistics are wrong and what I say is how it is. Which case are you more likely to die by a gun? If there are no guns involved and you focus on escaping instead of confronting the assailant, or if you decide to play rambo and try to get out your gun from a safe, instead of trying to get away from harm's way. The answer is pretty obvious to me. Avoiding a fight is always better for your health, than going into it head first. Yes, if fighting is unavoidable it can go either way, but avoiding the confrontation is best.

Is there a blackout? I don't think so, I heard quite a few stories like that. It is happening exactly at the rate one would predict compared to cases where owning a gun goes wrong. That's exactly what I'm talking about, that sometimes sure the gun will win the day, but most of the time it just escalates the situation instead of defusing it. You can't definitively claim that because there were x cases where the gun helped, therefore gun = always good.


Do you honestly think that the police being armed is the same as every home having a gun?
You act as if you never heard about any friendly fire and stolen gun incidents involving police. Well perhaps you were completely oblivious to them until now, but unfortunately they happen more often than you'd think. And it's kind of part of the job for the police(being armed), although the scotland yard would care to disagree. Anyway they're trained in using the gun and handling situations, unlike joe schmoe at home who goes for the gun safe while having a panic attack. If you have time to get to the gun, you probably also have time to get to safety. I don't even care if you go for the gun, just don't get into the face of the assailant all pumped up because you got a gun, instead think and gtfo.
Click to expand...

The police are useless. You are on your own in these sitautions. Take a look at local response times in your neighborhood. If its anything more than a minute youre pretty much fucked. That assumes you have that one minute to call them to notify them someone is breaking in....

Granted I still have to go get my gun and that burns precious seconds...but at least I wont be waiting around for the cops to show up an hour later and say "Boy I wish we had gotten here just 58 minutes ago..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top